Immigration in Canada under McCallum: a review

On Jan. 10, 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appointed Ahmed Hussen as the minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship. Minister Hussen replaced John McCallum, who had been the minister since Nov. 4, 2015.

As we prepare to move ahead under Hussen’s leadership, let’s take time to review McCallum’s tenure.

This is the third time that I am writing an article about the “good,” the “bad” and the “ugly” about a Canadian immigration minister. It is, in some ways, the most difficult one given that McCallum’s tenure was so short. The first assessment of an immigration minister that I wrote was about Jason Kenney, who remains Canada’s longest-serving immigration minister, having held the role for 1,719 days. His successor, Chris Alexander, who I also wrote about, led Canada’s immigration department for 826 days. John McCallum, meanwhile, was Canada’s immigration minister for only 433 days.

To some extent, the busy nature of Minister McCallum’s tenure made up for its short duration. He was the first immigration minister in Prime Minister Trudeau’s Liberal majority government, which assumed power after an election campaign in which refugee and citizenship issues were prominent topics. Because McCallum had also been the Liberal Party of Canada’s immigration critic during Canada’s previous Conservative government (and had also served as a cabinet minister in previous Liberal governments), he was able to hit the ground running in implementing his mandate.

Nonetheless, the comparative lack of material to write about was noticeable as I prepared this article. With this caution aside, I will now review below what I consider to be the good, the bad, and the ugly of McCallum’s tenure as the minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

The good: settlement of Syrian refugees

John McCallum’s biggest accomplishment as Canada’s Immigration minister, and the one that he will definitely be most remembered for, was his presiding over the resettlement of more than 39,000 Syrian refugees in Canada.

Given the numerous significant challenges in such a grand endeavour, it is doubtful that someone without the previous cabinet experience that McCallum had would have been able to achieve what he did in such a short period of time. While some may quibble that he technically did not fulfill the Liberal Party’s even more ambitious campaign promises, history will remember that, during a period when the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union at least partially due to xenophobia, and Donald Trump was elected U.S. president after stoking anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic sentiments, Canada welcomed 39,000 predominantly Muslim refugees.

Indeed, the change in tone emanating from Canada’s immigration department under McCallum compared to what it was like under the Conservatives was striking. I have previously written that if under the Liberals the Canadian government stopped trying to deny refugee claimants access to health care and prohibiting Muslim women from wearing the veil at citizenship ceremonies that the consequences of Canada’s 2015 federal election would be significant even if nothing else changed. McCallum reversed both ofthese policies, and publicly and repeatedly espoused the principles of inclusiveness and “welcoming” — often with hashtags.

As of writing, the only bill that McCallum introduced as immigration minister is still before the Senate. Bill C-6, An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, contains several agreeable provisions, including letting permanent residents count the time that they resided in Canada before immigrating toward their citizenship residency requirement and removing the bizarre requirement that people applying for Canadian citizenship have to intend to always reside in Canada after becoming citizens.

More controversially, Bill C-6 also fulfills the Liberal campaign promise to repeal the ability of the Government of Canada to revoke the Canadian citizenship of individuals who the government determines pose national security risks. While my thoughts on the philosophical arguments for and against such an ability of government remain fluid, the wording of the existing legislation was so overbroad, vague and lacking in procedural fairness that its immediate repeal was necessary.

McCallum also introduced regulatory changes to repeal conditional permanent residency, which provides that people in new relationships who are sponsored by their spouses to immigrate to Canada will lose their permanent residency if the relationship breaks down within two years after immigrating. While the Liberals disingenuously presented this repeal as facilitating family reunification (when in fact conditional permanent residency never changed the process of people actually entering Canada), the prospect of deportation following a martial breakdown led to some recent immigrants remaining in abusive relationships to avoid deportation and others falsely alleging abuse against their Canadian sponsors in order to stay in the country. While I understand the motives behind the introduction of conditional permanent residency, the enforcement headaches and unintended consequences that it created simply outweighed its benefits.

Finally, McCallum also reduced processing times in the family class, introduced draft regulations to raise the age of dependency in immigrating from 18 to 21, and abolished the four-year cap on being a foreign worker in Canada. The increase in the age of dependency will ensure that more young people are able to immigrate to an aging Canada, and the removal of a blanket cap on how long someone can be a foreign worker empowers employees and employers to make their own decisions.

The bad: cutting economic immigration

While Minister McCallum will be remembered fondly for his commitments to refugee resettlement and family reunification, his decision to cut economic immigration in 2016 without making it easier for current foreign workers to stay in Canada was disastrous, especially for international graduates working in Canada on post-graduate work permits.

His November 2016 changes to help international graduates immigrate was viewed as too little by most, and his concurrent decision to reduce the importance of being a foreign worker as a factor in whether one can immigrate to Canada came as a blow to thousands of foreign workers. As immigration critic, McCallum was vocal about the need to ensure a pathway to permanent residency for all foreign workers, not just high-skilled ones. By the end of his tenure as immigration minister, Canada still did not have a federal pathway to permanent residency for low-skilled foreign workers, and McCallum had closed the door to permanent residency for many high-skilled ones as well.

During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals promised to increase from 5,000 to 10,000 the number of people who could apply to Canada’s parent and grandparent sponsorship program. Under McCallum, the government did double the number of applications that would be accepted into processing, however, it did not double the number of applications that would actually be processed. The result was essentially the same as if the number who could apply was not increased at all, and the government simply came off as disingenuous to those who realized what had happened.

Another McCallum tendency that caused cynicism was his cross-country tour to allegedly learn from Canadians what Canada’s immigration levels should be. The minister would seemingly ignore poll after poll showing that Canadians did not want a substantial increase in immigration, and instead emerge from meetings with pre-approved stakeholders saying that there was overwhelming support for increased numbers. Ultimately, the Liberals appeared to listen to the polls and decided not to substantially increase immigration levels. It, in a way, made the minister’s statements all the more baffling.

Finally, under the previous Conservative Government, Jason Kenney as immigration minister was thought to have great influence over policy development at both the Canada Border Services Agency and the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada, which processes labour market impact assessment applications. McCallum did not appear to have similar influence, and while his respect of ministerial boundaries may be lauded by some, the lack of a coherent policy and tone emanating from the different departments involved in managing Canada’s immigration system was frustrating.

The ugly: no changes to citizenship revocation

One thing that surprised people about Bill C-6 was that McCallum did not change the citizenship revocation process for Canadians who were alleged to have received their citizenship through misrepresentation. The current process is that a Canadian citizen facing such an allegation will typically have only 60 days to respond in writing. There is generally no oral hearing and no meaningful appeal. As many have noted, Canadians have more procedural fairness in responding to parking tickets than when they lose their citizenship. During the time that the House of Commons was debating Bill C-6, McCallum seemed to acknowledge that this was problematic, but said that any changes to the process would come later.

Then, word emerged that Maryam Monsef, a Liberal member of Parliament and then cabinet minister, may have committed misrepresentation in her own citizenship application. While it is not clear whether what Monsef, or her parents, wrote in her citizenship application would have constituted misrepresentation that could lead to revocation, the Government of Canada immediately announced that it was considering a number of options to change the revocation process, which remains unresolved.

Any Canadian paying attention could be forgiven for thinking that there is one set of laws for them, and one for elites.

Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen.

Going forward under Minister Hussen

If Minister McCallum will be remembered for his resettling of 39,000 Syrian refugees, his successor, Ahmed Hussen, will likely be judged on how he handles one person — Donald Trump.

As of writing, Minister Hussen in his first month has had to respond to President Trump’s executive order banning certain foreign nationals from entering the United States, and has had to respond to resulting calls from human rights organizations that Canada should suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States.

Minister Hussen does not have an easy task ahead of him. Luckily, he does not need to look far to find inspiration in how to buck global trends and stand up for the Government of Canada’s objectives. He need only look to his predecessor.

Steven Meurrens is an immigration lawyer with Larlee Rosenberg in Vancouver. He writes the “Immigration Law” column for Canadian Immigrant magazine. Contact him at 604-681-9887, by email at steven.meurrens@larlee.com, or visit his blog at smeurrens.com.

Authors

About us…

Founded in 2004, the magazine began with a mandate to "inform, educate and motivate" immigrants to Canada and assist them in their new found journey. Since then, the magazine has grown to be the only national multi-platform brand for all immigrants to Canada, on topics from careers to education to settlement.
Canadian Immigrant not only connects newcomers in Canada, but also aspiring immigrants from more than 150 countries.

Newsletter

Yes! Send me email announcements, notices, special offers and other information that may be of interest to me from Canadian Immigrant.You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us for details. Canadian Immigrant, a publication of Metroland Media Group Ltd., 3145 Wolfedale Road, Mississauga, ON L5C 3A9. 905-273-8111.